You miss the point. Are you really saying there's no difference between an article that appears in the National Review and one that appears in The Nation? Of course there is--each is driven by a different agenda, and it colors one's view of the material; that was no unbiased report. If you look at the other piece I excerpted, you can see the magazine's editorial bias. You may blithely accept anything someone publishes at face value just because "every" newspaper has an agenda, but you'd be a fool to do so.
That article wasn't satire. Please--show me the satirical part.
And it's obvious that Vincent Browne's op-ed isn't intended as fiction. BTW, I looked up "Vincent Browne" on the internet and he seems like an Irish journalist who doesn't have any particularly sinister connections (except perhaps for the fact that he's a barrister!).
Uh, I wasn't talking about Vincent Browne's op-ed. I was talking about the short story about the novelist getting a bad review. I'll copy the link for you, but it's, like, right there on the site.
(Of course, since that's fiction, and you claim the other is satire, maybe this article is meant to be "satire," too?)
You're spinning like a top, and it does you no credit. Why not just admit to the type of publication excerpted from? Because it would reveal you have an agenda, too, and the petulance over 'Catholics' posting things you don't like is obvious--you REALLY think that a single person on FR is unaware of the Catholics' priest pedophile problems, and you're simply trying to share more knowledge?
I don't have a dog in this fight, and it's obvious what's going on to me. There's not a thing wrong with your having your position, but please don't post something like this post I'm replying to again--I don't care if you think I'm an idiot, but please don't talk to me like you think I am, because I'll rip your obvious bunk apart every time, ok?
Don’t forget that in Ireland hatred between Catholics and Protestants is near pathological. Granted it’s not as bad in the Republic of Ireland as it is in Northern Ireland, but it’s still bad.
You miss the point. One swallow doesn't make a summer. If you want to make the case that ThePost.ie/The Sunday Business Post Online is somehow equivalent to the _Nation_ or some other leftist rag, please do so. Color me sceptical, however, given that it is a business paper.
And OF COURSE it wasn't an unbiased report. Browne's article is in the "Comment and Analysis" section.
...If you look at the other piece I excerpted, you can see the magazine's editorial bias....
What? You can determine a paper's editorial bias based upon one article found in what appears to be a section for opinion pieces? Wow -- you must be a genius! Al Gore had an op-ed on global warming published in the _Wall Street Journal_ back in March of '06 -- on the basis of just that one article, can you tell me what the editorial bias of the _Wall Street Journal_ is?
...You may blithely accept anything someone publishes at face value just because "every" newspaper has an agenda, but you'd be a fool to do so.
I will accept a news source with my usual skepticism unless it's proven to me that it is an unreliable source of information.
You have yet to prove that ThePost.ie/The Sunday Business Post Online is an unreliable source of information, either in general or in the case of the particular op-ed article by Vincent Browne (the one that Alex Murphy originally posted). I am NOT saying that you cannot prove the point; I AM saying that you have yet to do so.
That article wasn't satire. Please--show me the satirical part.
"That article"? Which article? The Browne piece is not satire, and I never said it was. The Garvan Grant essay entitled "What an achievement," which you excerpted in your Post #3, obviously IS satire-- unless you think Grant really wants to give the "Post Mortem Outstanding Achievement Award" to the great ape.
Uh, I wasn't talking about Vincent Browne's op-ed. I was talking about the short story about the novelist getting a bad review. I'll copy the link for you, but it's, like, right there on the site.
No. I was responding to your Post #3, where you quoted from the satirical piece called "What an Achievement" by Garvan Grant. That's what you were talking about. You referred to, but didn't name the short story by Gerard Donovan in your post #16 -- which I have mentioned now for the first time.
Are you now saying that you didn't write post #3? If so, that's a fascinating claim.
(Of course, since that's fiction, and you claim the other is satire, maybe this article is meant to be "satire," too?)
Let's see -- the Browne piece is an op-ed commentary on the Murphy Commission's report on what he sees as the relationship between paedophile priests in Ireland and the Vatican; Garvan Grant, who apparently fancies himself an Irish Al Gore, has a poorly-written satirical piece; and Gerard Donovan has a short story. I'm having no trouble distinguishing these texts from each other, and am surprised to see that you are not able (or willing) to do so.
You're spinning like a top, and it does you no credit. Why not just admit to the type of publication excerpted from?
OK, I admit it: Alex Murphy excerpted from an online Sunday BUSINESS paper. There, I said it -- I cannot take it back.
...Because it would reveal you have an agenda, too, and the petulance over 'Catholics' posting things you don't like is obvious--you REALLY think that a single person on FR is unaware of the Catholics' priest pedophile problems, and you're simply trying to share more knowledge?
Yes, I admit I have an agenda: the exposing of falsehood and nonsense where I find it. Such "nonsense" includes the making of unsubstantiated and confused assertions that a news-source is unreliable, especially when such "source criticism" is being offered in the place of a serious attempt to come to terms with the Murphy Commission report.
Do you really think that all Freepers are conversant with the contents and the context of the Murphy Commission report and the resulting scandal in Ireland?
I have little respect for ostriches who hide their heads in the sand. I go to Roman Catholic sites to get their perspective and news on euthanasia and abortion, and I've noticed that there's not much tolerance for the way that bishops and others have dealt with this paedophile priest foulness there either.
I don't have a dog in this fight, and it's obvious what's going on to me. There's not a thing wrong with your having your position, but please don't post something like this post I'm replying to again--I don't care if you think I'm an idiot, but please don't talk to me like you think I am, because I'll rip your obvious bunk apart every time, ok?
I find my posts #6 and #20 to be innocuous, to say the least. If you feel that I am indulging in personal attacks, you can always ping the Moderator.